114 RHIPIDURA MEYERI. 
it does not agree with the term cinnamomea, subtus vir 
pallidior. As to the difference in size, the following com- 
parative table of measurements will show that they are 
alike in size of wings and tail (the total length I consi- 
der of not the least positive value) and that only Dr. 
Meyer’s Arfak specimen has a somewhat longer tail. 
wing tail bill’) tarsus 
„De. Meyer, Agiak Go een « 7,4; 9 sle 
Bruyn, » ede 113.48, 32 gee 
Woelders , » Se Me PAG ie 1,259, Aan 
Dr. Meyer, East New Guinea 7,3; 8 1,25) ale ne 
On ground of the impossibility to dan a shag line of 
demarkation between the western and the eastern form, I 
was sufficiently convinced of their identity and substituted 
my manuscript name /. meyeri by Rl. cinnamomea, but for- 
got to alter the first in the description of R. brachyrhyn- 
cha, where it occurs twice (pp. 81 and 82). 
Shortly after the publication of my review, Dr. Meyer 
wrote me that his Arfak bird and that from the Owen 
Stanley Range, Zi. cinnamomea, were really two different 
species, and very much obliged me in sending, on my 
request, both birds for comparison, The results of this 
comparison are the following: 
R. brachyrhyncha Meyer (nec Schl.) is identical with our 
two Arfak birds. The difference in length and color of the 
tail?) in the three specimens now before me are indivi- 
dual, if not due to age or season. They are specifically 
distinct from the eastern form, A. cinnamomea Meyer, and 
has, therefore, my original name A. meyeri to be resto- 
red and put in place of PR. cinnamomea on page 82 of my 
review. 
The eastern form is distinguished from the western by 
1) In the key to the species of my Review, the length of the bill in the 
two great subdivisions A (p. 67) and B (p. 70) are by mistake noted in cm. 
I hardly need to say that instead of em. ought to stand mm. 
2) On p. 83, line 8 from the bottom, read inner instead of outer web. 
Notes from the Leyden Museum, Vol. XV. 
